Vestibular Infant Screening–Flanders: What is the Most Appropriate Vestibular Screening Tool in Hearing-Impaired Children?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: As children with sensorineural hearing loss have an increased risk for vestibular impairment, the Vestibular Infant Screening-Flanders project implemented a vestibular screening by means of cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) at the age of 6 months for each child with hearing loss in Flanders (Belgium). Given that vestibular deficits can affect the child's development, this vestibular screening should allow early detection and intervention. However, less is currently known about which screening tool would be the most ideal and how vestibular impairment can evolve. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the most appropriate tool to screen for vestibular deficits, to assess the necessity of vestibular follow-up, and to set clinical guidelines for vestibular screening in children with hearing loss. DESIGN: In total, 71 children with congenital or early-onset sensorineural hearing loss were enrolled (mean age at first appointment = 6.7 months). Follow-up was provided at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years of age. Below three years of age, the video Head Impulse Test (vHIT) of the horizontal semicircular canals (SCC), the cVEMP, and the rotatory test at 0.16, 0.04, and 0.01 Hz were applied. At 3 years of age, the vHIT of the vertical SCC and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMP) were added. To evaluate early motor development, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) results at 6 months and 1-year old were included. RESULTS: At 6 months of age, the highest success rate was obtained with the cVEMP (90.0%) compared to the vHIT (70.0%) and the rotatory test (34.3-72.9%). Overall, vestibular deficits were found in 20.0% of the children, consisting of 13.9% with both SCC and otolith deficits (bilateral: 9.3%, unilateral: 4.6%), and 6.1% with unilateral isolated SCC (4.6%) or otolith (1.5%) deficits. Thus, vestibular deficits would not have been detected in 4.6% of the children by only using the cVEMP, whereas 1.5% would have been missed when only using the vHIT. Although vestibular deficits were more frequently found in severe to profound hearing loss (28.6%), characteristics of vestibular function were highly dependent on the underlying etiology. The AIMS results showed significantly weaker early motor development in children with bilateral vestibular deficits ( p = 0.001), but could not differentiate children with bilateral normal vestibular function from those with unilateral vestibular deficits ( p > 0.05). Progressive or delayed-onset vestibular dysfunction was only found in a few cases (age range: 12-36 months), in which the hearing loss was mainly caused by congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV). CONCLUSIONS: The cVEMP is the most feasible screening tool to assess vestibular function in 6-months-old children with hearing loss. Although the majority of children with vestibular deficits are detected with the cVEMP, the vHIT seems even more sensitive as isolated SCC deficits are associated with specific etiologies of hearing loss. As a result, the cVEMP is an appropriate vestibular screening tool, which is advised at least in severe to profound hearing loss, but certain etiologies require the addition of the vHIT (i.e., cCMV, meningitis, cochleovestibular anomalies with or without syndromic hearing loss).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».